Can abusive language have political significance?—the
reader will ask.

Undoubtedly. Here is an example taken from a field all class-conscious
workers are interested in.

We, Pravdists, are abused for “usurpers”, people who seize power
illegally. In March 1912, the Plekhanovites, Vperyodists,
Trotskyists, the liquidators, and a host of other groups “united” to
abuse us in this way.

Now,in June 1914, after a lapse of two odd years, the
supporters of Yedinstvo, the liquidators, Vperyodists, Trotskyists
and probably a dozen other groups, are once more “uniting” to
abuse us.

To help the reader grasp the political significance of this
vituperation, we ask him to recall certain elementary things that the
supporters of Yedinstvo and Co. are trying to “talk away” with
their clamour and abuse.

“They” have all declared the Conference of January 1912 to be an act
of usurpation, illegal seizure of power. That Conference, they argue, had
no right to call itself the supreme organ of the entire Marxist body.

Splendid, gentlemen! But see how the political facts expose
the inanity and falsity of your phrases.

Let us assume that you are right, and that the Conference of
January 1912 was an “illegal seizure of power”. What follows from that?

It follows that all the groups, trends and circles, and all the
Social-Democrats who resented this “illegal seizure of power”, should
have stood up for the “law”. Is that not so? They should have
united, not only to vilify the usurpers, but also to overthrow
them.

It would seem that the brave Plekhanov, the courageous Trotsky, the
bold Vperyodists and the noble liquidators could not have united
to abuse the usurpers without also uniting for the purpose of
overthrowing the usurpers.

If our heroes had not done that, they would have shown themselves to be
mere windbags, would they not?

All that the noble protestants against usurpation had to do was to get
together without the usurpers, condemn them, and show the workers
a practical example, a fact—a fact and not promises,
deeds and not phrases—of what legitimate bodies are like, as distinct
from usurpatory ones.

Only a person who regards all class-conscious workers in Russia as
idiots could fail to agree that what these workers would have done, on
seeing the united activities of the noble protestants against the
“usurpers”, would be to support these protestants, throw out the
usurpers, and treat them with ridicule and scorn!

One would think it absolutely indisputable that it was the bounden
duty, not only of every Marxist, but of every self-respecting
democrat, to unite with all opponents of “usurpation”, with the purpose
of overthrowing the usurpers.

What happened two years after our noble opponents of
“usurpation” took the field against the usurpers?

What happened was that the “usurpers” united 4/5 (four
fifths) of all the class-conscious workers of Russia around their
decisions.

For two-and-a-half years, from January 1, 1912, to May 13, 1914, the
Pravdist newspapers received financial support from 5,674 workers’ groups,
while the noble opponents of “usurpation”, the liquidators and their
friends, received the support of 1,421 workers’ groups.

The “usurpers” brought about the unity of four-fifths of the
workers of Russia, not merely in word, but in deed.

The noble enemies of “usurpation”, however, went up in smoke, for
their August bloc collapsed; Trotsky, the Letts,
the Caucasian leaders, etc., fell away in separate little groups,
which, in the actual movement, proved to be mere cyphers, both
individually and collectively.

How could four-fifths of the workers stand for vile
“usurpation” against the numerous, manifold, noble enemies of
usurpation who represented “a multitude of trends”?

Reader, this could and had to happen for the following reason: in
politics abusive language often serves as a screen for utter lack of
principles and sterility, impotence, angry impotence, on the part of those
who use such language.

But in spite of all the abuse that is heaped on the Pravdists,
“usurpers”, Leninists, etc., the class-conscious workers are uniting, and
will continue to uniter around the principles and tactics of consistent
Marxism. Despite all this kind of language, they recognise unity only
from below, the unity of the workers based on condemnation of
liquidationism, on acceptance of all the decisions of the “entire
Marxist body”. The subordination of the minority to the majority, not
compromise with intellectualist groups—only this can serve as the
principle of the working-class movement.